Approved by PBAC March 13, 1997
Don Farish convened the meeting at 8:05 AM by asking for a motion to approve the Agenda. A motion was made by Victor Garlin. A second was obtained from Bill Barnier. The Agenda was approved unanimously.
Farish then asked for a motion to approve the Minutes of February 25, 1997. A motion was made by Dennis Harris. A second was obtained from Neil Markley. The minutes were approved unanimously.
At the request of Schlereth, Harris took the PBAC through an explanation of the IRA Program and the current budget for the various activities identified as instructionally related at SSU. Melinda Barnard noted that the IRA Board was composed of faculty, students and administrators and that students held a majority vote on the Board. She noted that the IRA Board in 1996-1997 wished to set aside some money for new IRA programs each year but there could be some things that might move from the general fund to IRA if the general fund was reduced. Garlin asked where the administrative fee revenue would appear. Schlereth noted that this expense item would appear as a revenue item in the Administration and Finance independent operations account. Garlin asked what impact the elimination of football would have on the IRA budget for athletics. Rand Link noted that due to the consent decree resulting from the California Chapter of the National Organization of Women law suit, SSU was required to maintain parity between women's and men's sports. As a result, resources saved by eliminating football would be used to (a) balance the athletics budget and (b) facilitate the addition of new, but less expensive men's sports in lieu of football.
Harris then took Members through an analysis of the SSU Parking Program and outlined future challenges faced by this campus operation referencing materials contained in the Agenda Packet (Packet). Markley questioned the rationale for eliminating parking on Petaluma Hill Road and Cotati Boulevard. Harris responded that this recommendation by the Campus Planning Committee (CPC) was safety related. Garlin asked if the entire SSU police force was paid from the Parking Fund. Schlereth indicated that it was not. Garlin also asked why parking fines were projected to rise so significantly in 1997-1998. Schlereth responded by noting the parking fine projection for 1997-1998 was based on actual experience with parking fines in the current fiscal year. Garlin and Andy Merrified questioned whether it was possible for the PBAC to ask the CPC to reconsider its recommendation regarding Petaluma Hill Road and East Cotati Avenue in light of the budget implications of the recommendation. Bill Barnier noted that it did not look like the Parking Fund had much that it could contribute to the overall campus financial problem but he did ask if it were possible to reduce the amount of the interfund loan repayment to parking appropriated in the general fund University Wide budget. Schlereth concurred that this was a possibility. Larry Clark then asked why the Parking Program was showing an expense item for the CSEA MSA settlement when none of the other funds previously reviewed by the PBAC had shown a similar item. Schlereth noted that the funds presented previously were not covered by the collective bargaining agreement and therefore the CSEA settlement was not germane to those funds. Rand Link asked whether Schlereth planned to fill the currently vacant peace officer position heretofore occupied by Andy Luttringer. Schlereth explained that he was studying this possibility but indicated that a 24 hour per day, 7 day per week schedule required ten peace officer positions. Jim Meyer asked whether it would be possible to develop a collaborative relationship with the City of Rohnert Park for police services. Schlereth responded that this possibility had been studied several years ago and determined not to be feasible due to the unique role public safety plays on a college campus. He did suggest, however, that the possibility should be considered again.
Schlereth then presented the financial status of the SSU Housing Program and related executive orders and CSU data related to Housing contained in the Packet. Clark asked when the bonds associated with the Housing Program would be repaid. Tim Tiemens noted bond maturity was about twenty years. Farish asked Tiemens to prepare an analysis reflecting the maturity schedules of the various housing bond issues along with interest rates associated with the bonds. Garlin noted his sense of frustration suggesting that with each analysis of a particular University fund, little information was being provided indicating how the fund in question could assist in supporting the instructional budget. Farish commented that he saw the PBAC exercise to date as one of knowledge building and he expected that the PBAC would return to the various funds as the Committee developed various options for resolving the overall campus financial problem.
Les Adler concurred with Garlin's sentiment indicating that he believed the various campus managers needed to be rethinking how they conducted their business with an eye to saving money. Markley added that while he understood the magnitude of the campus financial problem, he also felt it was important to understand the many facets of the campus budget along with related expenditure requirements and needs prior to formulating a budget recommendation for the President to consider.
Barnard returned the discussion to the Housing Program asking Schlereth the dollar value of positions transferred to Housing from the general fund. Schlereth answered Barnard's question by briefing the PBAC on the activities of the 1994 ad-hoc Committee on Campus Priorities which resulted in the recommendation to transfer general fund employees to the newly decentralized housing program. Schlereth noted that approximately $500,000 of expense had been transferred as a result of this process. Katharyn Crabbe asked whether this transfer had inadvertently created the structural deficit in the general fund previously discussed. Schlereth responded that it had not since the structural deficit was largely created by a shortfall in generally funded employee benefits and cost of living adjustments. He noted that these increases had been absorbed by the Housing Program for its employees consistent with its self-sustaining status.
The PBAC then considered the SSU Capital Budget which was presented by Schlereth who referenced materials provided to Members in the Packet. Clark questioned whether Item 31 on the Deferred Maintenance List was appropriate since it related to the Parking Program. Schlereth agreed with Clark and indicated that error would be corrected.
Farish then asked David Walls to take the Committee through materials provided in the Packet related to Continuing Education (CE). Walls began his presentation but was cut short because the time of adjournment was approaching.
Farish noted that the Committee would resume the discussion of CE on March 13, 1996. He then adjourned the meeting at 9:50 AM.
Minutes prepared by Larry Furukawa-Schlereth
PBAC minutes 1996-1997